Harrison v. Stateville Correctional Center et al
Filing
211
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: The Court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 203] and directs the Clerk to enter judgment as follows: Judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 10/19/2023. Mailed notice. (mma, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
BOBBY LEE HARRISON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 18 C 893
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:
Bobby Lee Harrison was incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center from
February 29 to September 27, 2016. He was then transferred to Menard Correctional
Center, where he was housed at the time he filed this lawsuit. Harrison alleges that
multiple prison officials acted with deliberate indifference toward his medical needs in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His first amended complaint included claims against
Wexford Health Sources, Inc. and multiple prison physicians, counselors, and
administrators. Most of the defendants have been dismissed from the suit. The
remaining defendants, Randy Pfister, Jose Prado II, John Baldwin, Landria Dennis and
Vernita Wright, have moved for summary judgment on all of Harrison's claims. For the
reasons below, the Court grants the defendants' motion. 1
The Court thanks attorney Arthur Don of Greenberg Traurig, LLC for his diligent
service as appointed counsel for Harrison.
1
Background 2
A.
Stateville employees and policies
The defendants are all employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(IDOC), and some of them worked at Stateville Correctional Center. While Harrison
was imprisoned at Stateville, John Baldwin was the acting director of IDOC, Randy
Pfister was Stateville's warden, and Landria Dennis and Jose Prado II were correctional
counselors at Stateville. Vernita Wright previously served as an assistant warden at
Stateville, but she has not been employed there since her retirement in 2008.
At Stateville, correctional counselors collect grievances from individuals in
custody. Correctional counselors are not responsible for addressing medical
grievances. Instead, the correctional counselor makes a copy of the medical grievance
and writes a standard response that includes the following message: "A copy of this
grievance has been forwarded to the HCU [health care unit] for review and response.
The originals have been forwarded to the grievance office. You will receive a final
response from the grievance office once the HCU responds to same." Defs.' Stmt. of
Mat. Facts, Ex. 6 at 16:12-18, Ex. 9 at 52:11-53:15. The grievance officer and
employees within the health care unit are in charge of determining the appropriate
The defendants argue that their statement of material facts should be deemed
admitted because Harrison's response did not comply with the requirements of Local
Rule 56.1(b)(2) and did not include a statement of additional material facts as mandated
by Local Rule 56.1(b)(3). The Seventh Circuit has held that a nonmovant's failure to
adhere to the local rules may result in an admission of the defendant's material facts.
See Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003). However, "the decision whether
to apply the rule strictly or to overlook any transgression is one left to the district court's
discretion." Stevo v. Frasor, 662 F.3d 880, 887 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). The
Court opts not to penalize Harrison for noncompliance with Local Rule 56.1, and doing
so would make no difference in the outcome in any event.
2
2
response to a medical grievance. Grievance appeals are handled by the Administrative
Review Board (ARB).
B.
Harrison's medical conditions
Prior to Harrison's transfer to Stateville, he was housed at the Northern
Reception and Classification Center (NRC). Upon his arrival at Stateville, Harrison
informed prison staff of his various medical conditions, and his medical records were
also available to Stateville personnel.
1.
Gastric stomach cancer
In 2008 Harrison was diagnosed with gastric stomach cancer. In 2012, doctors
removed half of Harrison's stomach. While at NRC, Harrison received monthly B-12
injections, a daily multivitamin, and Ensure drinks. On February 27, 2016, Harrison was
ordered a diet of six small meals a day for thirty days.
After his transfer to Stateville, that institution did not maintain the treatments
Harrison had received at NRC. On April 11, 2016, Harrison filed a grievance requesting
a B-12 injection. Two days later Prado responded with the standard counselor
response as discussed above. A grievance officer reviewed Harrison's medical record
and determined that his most recent B-12 injection order was only for one dose. In a
June 28, 2016 grievance, Harrison asked prison staff to provide him with "one
multivitamin once a day, and B-12 shot once a month." Pl.'s Am. Compl., Ex. E. On
July 7, 2016, Dennis replied with the standard counselor response. On September 27,
2016, a grievance officer responded to Harrison stating that the medical staff had
reviewed the grievance and that he appeared to be receiving the proper medical care.
On June 17, 2016, a prison doctor submitted a dietary order for Harrison to be
3
given two snack bags per day. Harrison filed grievances on August 2 and August 3,
2016, asserting that the doctor's recommended diet was not effective. Dennis replied to
both grievances with the standard counselor response. On September 9, 2016,
Harrison filed an additional grievance reporting that he was vomiting and asking to be
sent to the hospital for an upper G.I. test. On September 15, 2016, a doctor submitted
an order for Harrison to receive six meals a day. Harrison filed a grievance later that
day declaring that dietary staff were not complying with the new order. Dennis replied
to the grievance with the standard counselor response. A grievance officer responded
that the dietary staff had Harrison's new dietary order on record. Ten days later
Harrison filed another grievance in which he criticized the dietary staff's refusal to
comply with his dietary order. ARB reviewed this grievance on March 20, 2017, after
Harrison's transfer to Menard Correctional Center. ARB did not affirm or deny the
grievance but rather responded with information about Stateville's snack bag policy and
encouraged Harrison to contact a counselor if the issue persisted.
2.
Chronic pinched nerves
Harrison suffers from chronic pinched nerves in both arms, elbows and hands.
On June 10, 2015, Dr. Reena Paul ordered elbow pads for Harrison. In December
2015, a neurologist examined Harrison and reported that his condition was "improving
significantly with elbow pads." Pl.'s Am. Compl., Ex. L at 1. This physician also
submitted an "rx" so that Harrison could be "handcuffed in front" and prescribed
Gabapentin for pain. Id.
Upon Harrison's arrival at Stateville, medical staff assured him that he would
receive new elbow pads and a new cuffing permit after he saw a doctor. On April 11,
4
2016, Harrison filed a grievance requesting 600mg of Gabapentin. Prado replied to
Harrison's grievance with the standard counselor response. On May 9, 2016, a
grievance officer responded that the pain medication prescription was for only 30 days.
The grievance officer also added that "[a]ll proper policies and procedures have been
followed at this time." Pl.'s Am. Compl., Ex. D. Harrison filed another grievance on
June 26, 2016, requesting that his handcuffs be placed in front. Dennis responded
three days later that "[o]ffenders are cuffed in accordance with IDOC policy and
procedure" and noted that Harrison "has no medical permit indicating he should be
cuffed from the front." Pl.'s Am. Compl., Ex. K at 1. A grievance officer reviewed
Dennis's response and concluded that she had correctly addressed the issue.
On June 28, 2016, Harrison filed another grievance asking prison staff to provide
him with "600mg Gabapentin twice daily" to treat his pinched nerve pain. Pl.'s Am.
Compl., Ex. E at 1. Dennis replied with the standard counselor response. A grievance
officer responded by noting that a prison doctor had recently examined Harrison and
recommended that no further action be taken "as grievant appears to be receiving
medical care at this time." Id. Harrison filed a grievance on August 3, 2016, describing
"severe pain" in both arms and asking for Gabapentin. Id., Ex. F at 2. On September
16, 2016, Harrison filed an additional grievance requesting Gabapentin. Dennis replied
four days later with the standard counselor response.
The ARB addressed Harrison's June 26, 2016 grievance on February 16, 2017,
stating that "offender has no medical permit indicating he needs to be handcuffed from
the front." Defs.' Stmt. of Mat. Facts, Ex. 5 at 114. The ARB response contains
Baldwin's signature.
5
3.
Chronic throat infection and growth in mouth
Before being transferred to Stateville, Harrison was found to have a growth on
the roof of his mouth. In August 2016, while at Stateville, he began to experience
multiple throat issues, including burning and swelling. Harrison alerted the medical
staff, and they scheduled a medical visit for September 2, 2016. He reported his
symptoms to a prison doctor, and the doctor prescribed "cold pills and some [T]ums."
Pl.'s Am. Compl. ¶ 137. His symptoms continued, and he had another medical visit on
September 8. During that visit a doctor confirmed that Harrison had a throat infection
and directed the nurses to give him an antibiotic shot. After a few days of relief
Harrison's condition worsened, and he filed two grievances on September 12 describing
his symptoms and requesting additional antibiotics. Dennis responded to both
grievances with the standard counselor response. Harrison had another medical visit
on September 15, after which a doctor ordered x-rays for the growth in Harrison's
mouth. Harrison asked to be admitted to the hospital, but the doctor denied that request
and said he should return for another medical visit in three weeks. The next day,
Harrison filed a grievance complaining about the treatment of his throat up to that point
and requesting to see a specialist to examine his lymph nodes.
4.
Hepatitis C (HCV) infection with cirrhosis of the liver
Harrison was diagnosed with HCV in 2008 while housed in the Cook County Jail.
NRC medical staff denied Harrison's requests for HCV treatment, stating that he did not
meet the criteria for treatment. After his transfer to Stateville, he informed a doctor of
his HCV diagnosis during an April 27, 2016 visit. The doctor responded that he did not
have Harrison's medical records from the Cook County Jail and told Harrison he would
6
order the records. Harrison explained his HCV diagnosis to multiple health
professionals at Stateville but was repeatedly told that he did not meet the criteria for
treatment. Harrison filed multiple grievances complaining about the lack of treatment for
his HCV throughout his time at Stateville but says that these grievances were never
returned to him—in other words, they went unaddressed. On May 11, 2017, the ARB
reviewed a grievance Harrison filed after leaving Stateville. The ARB response stated
that "per HCU, offender does not meet current guidelines for Hepatitis C treatment."
Defs.' Stmt. of Mat. Facts, Ex. 5 at 117.
Discussion
To prevail on their motion for summary judgment, the defendants must
demonstrate that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine
dispute as to any material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Once the movant has identified grounds for the motion, the
nonmovant must "submit evidentiary materials that set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial." Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932, 937 (7th Cir.
2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). Because the defendants have moved for
summary judgment, all facts and reasonable inferences are construed in the light most
favorable to Harrison. See King v. Hendricks Cnty. Comm'rs, 954 F.3d 981, 984 (7th
Cir. 2020).
A.
Eighth Amendment claims
Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment's mandate against cruel and
7
unusual punishment when they display "deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A deliberate indifference claim
includes both an objective and a subjective element. For the objective element, a
plaintiff must show that his medical condition is "objectively, sufficiently serious."
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). To satisfy the subjective element the plaintiff must demonstrate
that prison officials acted with a "sufficiently culpable state of mind." Greeno, 414 F.3d
at 653 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). In other words, "[t]he officials must know of
and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health." Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 522
(7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Greeno, 414 F.3d at 653). To satisfy the subjective element,
Harrison must demonstrate that each defendant "knew of [his] serious medical condition
but intentionally or recklessly disregarded it." Hayes, 546 F.3d at 523.
The parties do not debate whether each of the four medical conditions that
Harrison identified—gastric stomach cancer, chronic pinched nerves, chronic throat
infection and growth and HCV—are objectively serious. The Court therefore will
assume these conditions constituted objectively serious medical conditions and proceed
to the question of deliberate indifference. The defendants correctly assert that as
nonmedical personnel (a department director, a warden, and correctional counselors),
they were entitled to defer to the expertise of medical professionals. See Berry v.
Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010). That said, "[n]on-medical defendants
cannot simply ignore an inmate's plight." Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 755 (7th Cir.
2011). Prison officials may be found deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious
medical needs if "they have a reason to believe (or actual knowledge) that prison
8
doctors or their assistants are mistreating (or not treating) a prisoner" and fail to take
action. Hayes, 546 F.3d at 527 (citation omitted).
1.
Acting Director John Baldwin
Harrison contends that Baldwin was aware of his denied grievances and "could
have intervened." Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. to Summ. J. at 5. The receipt of inmate
complaints can be sufficient to support an inference that a prison administrator knew of
a substantial risk of harm to the inmate. See Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 854 (7th
Cir. 1999) (ruling plaintiff's letters put prison administrators on notice of his condition).
The plaintiff must, however, produce evidence that the administrator gained knowledge
of the plaintiff's medical needs through those complaints. Boyce v. Moore, 314 F.3d
884, 889-90 (7th Cir. 2002); Manney v. Monroe, 151 F. Supp. 2d 976, 992 (N.D. Ill.
2001) ("The Eighth Amendment claimant must satisfy a knowledge element by showing
that the prison official was subjectively aware of the risk."). Baldwin has no independent
recollection of Harrison or his medical issues, Defs.' Stmt. of Mat. Facts, Ex. 5 at 41:2042:19, but his signature appears on multiple ARB reviews of Harrison's grievances,
including a September 16 grievance regarding prison staff not complying with his dietary
order. Pl.'s Am. Compl., Ex. H at 7. Harrison also testified he received a response
signed by "John Baldwin" that an alternative cuffing permit would be honored, Defs.'
Stmt. of Mat. Facts, Ex. 8 at 107:8-110:1,but he stated that he does not have copies of
any correspondence with Baldwin, id. at 119:13-120:2.
If Baldwin personally responded to Harrison's concerns about being handcuffed
from the back, that could give rise to a reasonable inference that he was aware of a risk
to Harrison's health. But Harrison twice described the individual who signed off on the
9
permit as the "medical director" at Stateville. Id. Later in his deposition, while
discussing Baldwin's claimed role in his medical treatment as Acting Director, Harrison
only mentioned Baldwin's supervisory role over the prison staff and his participation in
the denial of his grievances. Id. at 114:9-120:2.
The evidence is insufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find that Baldwin
signed off on a handcuffing-related permit for Harrison while serving as Acting Director
of IDOC or that he otherwise participated in this claimed denial of Harrison's
constitutional rights. Baldwin further testified, and it is undisputed for present purposes,
that although his signature appears on the responses to Harrison's grievances, he did
not review or sign those grievances and instead delegated this responsibility to his staff.
Defs.' Stmt. of Mat. Facts, Ex. 5 at 48:9-10; 49:1-5. Because there is no evidence that
Baldwin actually reviewed Harrison's grievances, no reasonable jury could find that
"through the manner and content of [Harrison's] communication, he gave the prison
official sufficient notice to alert him" of his medical needs. Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d
667, 694 (7th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Finally, Harrison asserts that Baldwin is "the last person to oversee the grievance
and sign off on the appeals," Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. to Summ. J. at 4, but this claim is not
supported by the record. Baldwin testified that he is not involved in the grievance
process and does not recall ever reviewing an offender grievance. Defs.' Stmt. of Mat.
Facts, Ex. 5 at 42:21; Id. at 44:12-16. There is no contrary evidence.
In sum, Harrison has not presented evidence from which a reasonable jury can
conclude that Baldwin was aware of his serious medical needs, let alone that he was
deliberately indifferent to them. Baldwin is entitled to summary judgment.
10
2.
Correctional counselor Landria Dennis
Correctional counselor Dennis testified that, in addition to forwarding grievances
to medical staff, her job included ensuring that inmates were receiving a proper diet in
accordance with their medical records. Defs.' Stmt. of Mat. Facts, Ex. 8 at 28:13-29:1.
Harrison claims that Dennis's failure to ensure that he received an appropriate diet after
she signed two August 2016 grievances in which he complained about his doctor's
dietary order constitutes deliberate indifference. As a correctional counselor, Dennis did
not have the authority to order medical care or recommend alternative courses of
treatment. Defs.' Stmt. of Mat. Facts, Ex. 8 at 24:14-18. Furthermore, in addressing
Harrison's diet-related grievance, Dennis was entitled to rely on the judgment of the
medical professional who submitted Harrison's June diet order. No reasonable jury
could find that Dennis had reason to believe that medical staff were mistreating or failing
to treat Harrison.
For similar reasons, no reasonable trier of fact could find that Dennis was
deliberately indifferent to Harrison's medical condition involving his chronic pinched
nerves. While at NRC, Harrison received an order to be handcuffed from the front, and
upon his arrival at Stateville medical staff assured him that he would receive a new
cuffing permit once he saw a doctor. Pl.'s Am. Compl. ¶ 76. There is no evidence in
the record, however, that a new cuffing permit was ever issued. Prisoners at Stateville
are handcuffed in the front only where there is a medical directive in place requiring this.
Defs.' Stmt. of Mat. Facts, Ex. 8 at 68:23-69:14. In a June 26, 2016 grievance, Harrison
contended that he was not supposed to be handcuffed from the back due to medical
issues. Pl.'s Am. Compl., Ex. K. Dennis testified that she relied on the information in
11
Harrison's medical records in determining that there was no medical directive calling for
him to be handcuffed in the front. Defs.' Stmt. of Mat. Facts, Ex. 8 at 48:23-49:8. There
is no contrary evidence. As a nonmedical professional, Dennis was entitled to rely on
the judgment of the medical staff that decided not to issue a new cuffing permit for
Harrison.
Harrison also contends that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated in
connection with Stateville personnel's treatment of his chronic throat infection and
growth. In his amended complaint, Harrison alleges that he told a physician assistant
about his throat symptoms during a medical visit on September 2, 2016, but that Dr.
Obaisi "refused to talk to plaintiffs [sic] at that time." Pl.'s Am. Compl. ¶ 69. Over the
next two weeks Harrison filed multiple grievances describing his throat issues, all of
which were signed by Dennis. In those grievances, however, Harrison reported that he
did speak to Dr. Obaisi during the September 2, 2016 visit. See, e.g., Pl.'s Am. Compl.,
Ex. P at 1. Furthermore, in one of the September 16, 2016 grievances Harrison stated
that Dr. Obaisi saw him on both September 8, 2016 and September 15, 2016. Id. at 2.
Nonmedical prison officials (like Dennis) cannot be "deliberately indifferent simply
because [they] failed to respond directly to the medical complaints of a prisoner who
was already being treated by the prison doctor." Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001,
1012 (7th Cir. 2006). Harrison has not presented evidence that would permit a
reasonable jury to find that Dennis had reason to believe he was receiving inadequate
care. It may be that Harrison disagreed with the treatment plans provided by Dr. Obaisi
or other health professionals. But such disagreement, without more, is insufficient to
establish deliberate indifference. See Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.
12
1996). Dennis is entitled to summary judgment.
3.
Correctional counselor Jose Prado II
Harrison claims that correctional counselor Prado was deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs stemming from his gastric stomach cancer and chronic
pinched nerves. Prado signed Harrison's April 11, 2016 grievance in which he
complained about pain from his pinched nerve and requested B-12 injections; he
included the standard counselor response; and he forwarded Harrison's grievance to
the medical care unit. Pl.'s Am. Compl., Ex. D. The May 9, 2016 response from a
grievance officer stated that Harrison did not have a valid prescription for the
medications he requested and that medical staff were complying with all proper
procedures. Id. Prado was entitled to rely on these assurances by the medical staff.
See Greeno, 414 F.3d at 655-56 (concluding that prison complaint examiner's decision
not to take further action once he had verified prisoner's treatment with medical officials
did not constitute deliberate indifference). No reasonable jury could find that he was
deliberately indifferent to Harrison's serious medical needs.
4.
Warden Randy Pfister
Harrison contends that Pfister is liable for Harrison's allegedly deficient medical
care through his supervisory role at the prison. In his amended complaint, Harrison
argues that Pfister "hired these unqualified officials, and failed to adequately train their
staff, or created a policy of [sic] custom that allowed the wrong to occur." Pl.'s Am.
Comp. ¶ 62. The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to §1983 actions, and
thus a supervisor cannot be held liable for the conduct of lower-level employees unless
he "[knew] about the conduct and facilitate[d] it, approve[d] it, condone[d] it, or turn[ed] a
13
blind eye for fear of what [he] might see." Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740
(7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)).
In other words, to be liable, Pfister must have been "personally responsible for the
deprivation of a constitutional right." Chavez, 251 F.3d at 651 (quoting Gentry v.
Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995)).
Harrison has not presented any evidence that Pfister was personally responsible
for any aspect of his medical care at Stateville. Pfister's involvement with medical care
at Stateville was extremely limited, Defs.' Stmt. of Mat. Facts ¶ 34, and Harrison never
directly informed Pfister about his medical issues, id. at ¶ 37.
Pfister's only possible involvement in Harrison's medical care would have been
through the grievance process. In response to the defendants' summary judgment
motion, Harrison adjusts his allegations against Pfister, contending the warden "was
responsible for reviewing grievances and took no action to properly investigate Mr.
Harrison’s repeated grievances." Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. to Summ. J. at 14. But Pfister was
only responsible for directly handling grievances that were referred to him by the
Administrative Review Board. Defs.' Stmt. of Mat. Facts ¶ 36. There is no evidence
that he personally reviewed any of Harrison's grievances, as they were all signed by
designees. Id. ¶ 37. Because Harrison has not demonstrated that Pfister was aware of
his medical needs, no reasonable trier of fact could find that he was deliberately
indifferent to those needs.
5.
Vernita Wright
Harrison originally alleged that Wright was an assistant warden during his
incarceration at Stateville. However, Wright has not been employed at Stateville since
14
her retirement in 2008. Defs.' Stmt. of Mat. Facts ¶ 40. Harrison agrees that Wright
was added to this suit in error and should be dismissed from this lawsuit. Pl.'s Mem. in
Opp. to Summ. J. at 15. The Court therefore grants summary judgment in Wright's
favor.
B.
Qualified immunity
The defendants also argued that they were entitled to summary judgment on
qualified immunity grounds. The Court need not reach the question of qualified
immunity because, as explained above, the lack of evidence of a constitutional violation
is a more direct basis for granting summary judgment.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the defendants' motion for summary
judgment [dkt. no. 203] and directs the Clerk to enter judgment as follows: Judgment is
entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
Date: October 19, 2023
________________________________
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY
United States District Judge
15
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?